Josh Beckett

[Chamomile]

Beckett going for the sox tonight trying to be the ultimate stopper. If he doesnt win tonight' date=' then I think the general team psyche is just gonna crumble. NY is a 100 win team. TB is looking like they are on their way there too. Boston is trying to prove they belong. But having lost 5 of 7 to NY and all 4 to TB, they arent exactly showing it. If the sox win tonight, they go on a run, like a 7-3 run through the next 10 games against good teams. If they lose tonight, IMO, they slump through the next 10 games and are effectively out of it by June 1. I know that the saying is momentum stops with the next day's starting pitcher, but in this instance, I think it isnt true. Tonight, in YS, vs CC with a gimpy Beckett returning, the sox are essentially putting their season on the line.[/quote']

 

 

I'm not sure what is more ridiculous: the Red Sox crumbling after losing a game in May, the Yankees being a lock to win 100 games in May, or the Red Sox being out of it on June 1st.

 

Sounds like a lot of wishful thinking from a Yankees fan who in reality knows that the Red Sox are fully capable of going on a run and making it a race, even if they fall to 10 games back before they do it.

[jacksonianmarch]

Really? Dude, has anyone talked to you about your unabashed sox loving here? Have you ever said anything bad about the sox? Really? Dude, this sox team is 2006-esque and you have two teams in your division who are WS caliber.

[Chamomile]

Really? Dude' date=' has anyone talked to you about your unabashed sox loving here? Have you ever said anything bad about the sox? Really? Dude, this sox team is 2006-esque and you have two teams in your division who are WS caliber.[/quote']

 

You think this team is 2006-esque and on top of it you of all people call me out for being biased.

 

This team is nothing like 2006. In 2006, the team scored 820 runs (we're on pace to score over 100 more this year) and they had a single starter (Curt Schilling) who made 10 starts with an ERA below 4.50. Be honest, do you really expect Josh Beckett, John Lackey, Clay Buchholz and Daisuke Matsuzaka to all have ERA's over 4.50?

[Dipre]

Really? Dude' date=' has anyone talked to you about your unabashed sox loving here? [b'] Have you ever said anything bad about the sox?[/b] Really? Dude, this sox team is 2006-esque and you have two teams in your division who are WS caliber.

 

Have you ever said anything good about them? Do you know the season needs to play out before you go out assigning 100 wins to teams?

[Chamomile]

Have you ever said anything good about them? Do you know the season needs to play out before you go out assigning 100 wins to teams?

 

"Reasonable people" with "an idea about baseball" know that the season is over because the Yankees and Rays have been "decisively better" for less than a quarter of the season. We're just unreasonable Red Sox fans.

[Dipre]

"Reasonable people" with "an idea about baseball" know that the season is over because the Yankees and Rays have been "decisively better" for less than a quarter of the season. We're just unreasonable Red Sox fans.

 

 

They also lie down against good pitching offensively, can't defend, can't pitch, can't dress properly, blablablabbla.

[diony]

You think this team is 2006-esque and on top of it you of all people call me out for being biased.

 

This team is nothing like 2006. In 2006, the team scored 820 runs (we're on pace to score over 100 more this year) and they had a single starter (Curt Schilling) who made 10 starts with an ERA below 4.50. Be honest, do you really expect Josh Beckett, John Lackey, Clay Buchholz and Daisuke Matsuzaka to all have ERA's over 4.50?

 

Buchh and Dice-K, sure.

[Chamomile]

Buchh and Dice-K' date=' sure.[/quote']

 

Exactly. At least three Red Sox starters are likely to have an ERA under 4.50 compared to 2006 when Schilling was the staff "ace" with a 3.97 ERA, Wakefield (23 starts) was the next most effective starter with an ERA of 4.63 and Lester (15 starts) was the next most effective starter with an ERA of 4.76.

 

Not to mention, the bullpen was a mess. Papelbon was their only effective reliever.

[TheMino007]

From what I've watched, Beckett has struggles pitching out of the stretch. When guys are on base, their OBP against this year is something like .300 points higher than when no one is on base. Also, interestingly, when no one is on first Beckett's numbers are better. What I would guess what this means is that Beckett worries too much about holding runners on at first, and using that slidestep his prohibiting from throwing his best stuff, which is hurting him b/c guys are crushing his fastballs and his curveballs are ineffective

[Dipre]

From what I've watched' date=' Beckett has struggles pitching out of the stretch. When guys are on base, their OBP against this year is something like .300 points higher than when no one is on base. Also, interestingly, when no one is on first Beckett's numbers are better. What I would guess what this means is that Beckett worries too much about holding runners on at first, and using that slidestep his prohibiting from throwing his best stuff, which is hurting him b/c guys are crushing his fastballs and his curveballs are ineffective[/quote']

 

Either that, or his mechanics from the stretch are f***ed. His BABIP is also abnormaly high at a .365 clip.

 

His Xfip is 4.23 as well, a good indicator that a correction could be coming soon,.

[CoachC.]

Beckett on DL.

 

Where's the apology, Girardi?

[Flynnatic10]

more woes for the sox

[YeAuldBroade]

more woes for the sox

With the way Beckett's been pitching, Wakefield will be a step up. And now HOPEFULLY once Beckett gets his health problems straightened out we'll start seeing the "real" Beckett that is supposed to be an Ace.

[Chamomile]

With the way Beckett's been pitching' date=' Wakefield will be a step up. And now HOPEFULLY once Beckett gets his health problems straightened out we'll start seeing the "real" Beckett that is supposed to be an Ace.[/quote']

 

Let's be honest, Beckett hasn't been an ace since 2007. But if he's healthy, he will be a hell of a #2 starter.

[Palodios]

Let's be honest' date=' Beckett hasn't been an ace since 2007. But if he's healthy, he will be a hell of a #2 starter.[/quote']

 

Beckett was ace-like for quite some time last year. He had a bad start and a bad finish, but he was great in between.

[Chamomile]

Beckett was ace-like for quite some time last year. He had a bad start and a bad finish' date=' but he was great in between.[/quote']

 

That's like saying an Oreo is cream flavored.

[Palodios]

Haha, I guess so. But there is a point where a pitcher dominates anybody-- good hitting or bad-- and will save the bullpen some work every time out, and that's what it means to be an ace. Beckett had an extremely long streak like that, but he's not quite there with the Santanas/ Halladays because he's inconsistent, but there is no question that when he's on, he's on.